A couple has suffered everyone’s worst wedding nightmare. After receiving the professional images back from their photographer, they discovered all of the images were dark, grainy, and unexposed — so much so, their family’s iPhone photos came out better.
What’s worse, the photographer they used came recommended from a mutual friend of theirs. After reviewing the photographer’s Instagram page, the couple agreed on a rate of $800.
Bride Hayley Kelble told Insider:
I had asked her about a contract, because everyone else I had contacted wanted to do a contract right away before anything was settled. She said: 'No, we don't really need to do that.' That was kind of the first red flag.
Kelble said the photographer didn’t use flash in the "dimly lit" church. She said there was also no adequate direction given when posing guests and that the photographer left two-and-a-half hours earlier than agreed.
We moved things around so that she could get pictures of us cutting the cake and stuff before she left. She stayed for like 20 minutes of the reception and left.
Images that Kelble’s mother had taken on her iPhone upstaged the professional images, appearing sharper and warmer.
Insider reached out to Kelble's wedding photographer, who declined to comment. The couple ended up hiring another photographer to re-shoot images in their wedding outfits.
Images used with permission of Hayley Kelble.
I shot alongside another photographer for my sister's wedding. It was a small event - the ceremony outdoors and the reception in one of those huge tents (it was October and quite chilly). My sister nor my parents nor her husband's parents have a bunch of money. They probably spent $2000 total (food, tent and heater rentals, etc). The photographer she hired charged $600. And she was fabulous - I had a great time working alongside her (which I didn't expect), we shared equipment, and the photos she produced were great.
So, yep, a lot of people can't afford thousands for photos. It doesn't make them an idiot. It only makes them an idiot if they don't check references or a portfolio or anything like that.
Kind of tired of this idea that poor people don't deserve a decent photographer because you "get what you pay for" or people need to "stop being cheap."
I see what you're saying and I agree that it's not okay for people to disrespect "poor people" for not being able to afford a good photographer.
At the same time though, where else in the world are you entitled to goods and services you cant afford? I don't get to negotiate for things on Amazon, or my Netflix subscription. Or my camera. I get to shop around and decide if I can afford what is on the market. Every client I talk to has some conversation about what they've "budgeted" or what "someone else got" and it's all based on other photographers making steep discounts just to get work or their perception that photography is just "pushing a button".
Good photography isn't easy, and good photographers deserve to get paid well for their efforts. Other photographers should do what they can not to cannibalize each other and make that harder.
But no one is saying anyone is entitled to anything here. I'm saying a market already exists - wedding photography at budget prices. People are complaining, in universal terms, that hiring such a person is a waste of money, you will get photos like this person, and you "get what you pay for." It would only be entitled if I said these budget photographers should exist if they didn't. But they do.
And yes, good photography isn't easy and photographers deserve to get paid well. But 1) you can be a GREAT photographer will little work experience, limiting your ability to get work and charge more, and 2) the clients aren't setting these prices - the photographers are. So it's not like they're being abused and underpaid.
I agree, however, about cannibalization. But I think there is a gray area here - it isn't simply "charge more for your work." Burgeoning photographers who can work on a budget need to start somewhere.
Absolutely, it's a complicated topic. And I think we have to remember that everyone is posting on the internet with a specific worldview and limited information, myself included. But I do think that, generally, many photographers feel the pinch of being in an industry where motivated enthusiasts, hobbyists, and photographers who don't really understand the economics are constantly working against them in their pursuit to get paid what they are "worth".
I definitely agree that everyone needs to "start somewhere", but it doesn't appear that this is one of those situations where the family were helping out a friend who needed to get some portfolio shots to get going. They, apparently, hired someone who was advertising a level of competence that was not proportionate to their prices and that maybe it should have been a sign for the couple to dig deeper. All of us are responsible for not only being good photographers, but educating as many people as possible about what goes in to making good photographs, why they're not something just anyone with a phone can pull off, and why they should revisit their ideas of what photography is "worth".
This is one reason I don't really want to shoot weddings. Especially "budget" weddings. There will always be a disconnect between what the person can afford and how important the resultant images are to them. I want to work hard and put out a great product no matter what, but working a ton of hours to make something that lives up to expectations just isn't worth it for shoestring budgets. Everyone is able to do what they want in that scenario, and you might be doing the couple a favor, but you aren't doing yourself or other photographers a favor in the long run.
People have to eat and pay their bills.
They're not concerned in the long run.
Here is another take on the subject, the caterer, the seamstress, and the event planner all have there finished product completed before the wedding takes place, the photographer is the only one who "makes" his product on the day of the wedding as it happens and often times has only one chance to capture that "special" moment. try baking and decorating the cake, prepare the food, make the dress, and decorate the venue on the day of the wedding as it's happening. That is why wedding photography is so expensive.
it's not THAT hard. it's not brain surgery. actually if you're a photographer it's probably kind of like brain surgery is to a brain surgeon. it's what you know how to do.
That right there is some funny stuff.
*everything* to do with weddings is massively overpriced. If you want to know why wedding photography is overpriced, it's because people will pay.
Edit: I cannot express how amused I am by the fact that people (photographers) think that wedding photographers are different from every other wedding service. No doubt a forum of bakers, or seamstresses, or... would object similarly.
I think weddings are a massive waste of money, but they're not "overpriced". People only pay for things that have perceived value. As a photographer, you're capturing the only long lasting memories of what, for some, will be the most important day of their life. And it's not easy to do well and takes a lot of time. (I don't shoot weddings, but I recognize the value)
Yes, I'm positive that photograohers don't leverage their position like the rest of the industry. No doubt photographers are remarkably moral.
https://youtu.be/O5BeLinyfpg
No one said they were all moral. And one single video that I'm not going to click on won't change my opinion. But enjoy your time in a photography community attacking the photography industry!
Adam Ruins Everything is solidly researched and does issue corrections when necessary.
However, the video references a survey, which shows that photographers also take a wedding tax.
Sorry I hurt your feelings. Not.
Edit: the irony is you would be unlikely to read an academic paper.
I love how everyone assumes they've "hurt your feelings" on the internet. You haven't, you're just wrong. I don't see the reason in joining a photography community to come in and try to make photographers out to be evil people. Some are, most aren't just like everything else.
Adam Ruins Everything is one of the most toxic channels on the internet. He does almost no legitimate research, all of his videos are based entirely on logical fallacies and sensationalism, and n=1 sample sizes designed solely to reinforce his pre-existing opinion. Just because someone says something you already believe in doesn't make them "intelligent".
And for what it's worth, I'm an engineer and have certainly read more academic papers than you have.
EDIT: I watched your video just to see how long it would take to prove my point and I was not disappointed. The "survey" you reference simply states photographers would charge more for a wedding than a birthday party of the "same size". This is the definition of a logical fallacy because he's presupposing that the only factor that should be used to determine the cost of covering an event is the size or number of attendees. Anyone who's ever been... well, anywhere, ever would be able to tell you that the level of effort to cover a birthday party is not equal to the amount to cover a wedding and not nearly as much is riding on an event that literally occurs every year to a, theoretically "once in a lifetime" event that you will revisit and share photos from for the rest of your life.
He then goes on to invent a term like "wedding tax" to make it sound more egregious, a bunch of politicians did that with the "death tax". Sounds scary, doesn't prove your point.
That's the spirit, princess.
FWIW I've spent far more time at university than I care to admit; but unlike you I don't boast about it. Slow clap, you're an "engineer".
Not boasting, just stating a fact to refute your opinion. Also, no need for the air quotes, I am an actual engineer. Says so on my degree and everything.
Yes, I have more than one piece of paper. It's very exciting, isn't it.
Congrats! It is pretty cool. Of course you won't say what they're in..... And if not engineering or medicine they probably don't involve a lot of reading white papers.... Oh well, you're getting a free education in logic and formal argumentation, so that's fun!!
Dude, I've completed units in formal logic. I simply can't be bothered tearing you to pieces; it's more effort than I can be bothered with.
However, anyone who is even remotely familiar with scientific method understands that you have to assess methodology and bias of a study by reading the methodology and conflict sections of the particular paper.
Ugh.
Whole units? Neat. It's too bad you can't be bothered. I would love to be "torn to pieces" by a guy who quotes "Adam ruins everything" and has a fundamental lack of understanding of the definition of the word 'value' or why people who think something's important might actually, GASP, pay a lot of money for it. Good day sir!
What an absolute shock; you totally missed my OP where I expressly stated "it's because people will pay".
Slow clap; you rebutted me by stating what I had already stated.
Lucky you are an "engineer".
Derp
While we're on the topic of missing the point, I'm not saying you didn't state "people will pay". I'm saying you don't understand the meaning of the word value. By definition it's not "overpriced" (which you said in the same post) if people value it at that rate.
This is fun! You make it really easy.
So far the "engineer" has asaerted expertise in economics and formal logic; neither of which are taught as a part of an engineering degree.
So, are we talking exchange value or use value?
I never "asaerted" expertise in either. Nor did I say those specific things came from my engineering degree, only that I've read white papers. But I'm glad you started googling terms unrelated to the original post to try and change the subject.
Given that political economics is my specialisation, I didn't need to Google.
But by all means, I await your lecture. You have the floor.
If you honestly have a specialization in economics and don't understand the basic principal that something is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it and that, therefore, no photographers are "scamming" brides out of anything. Then nothing I can say will help you. I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. I didn't specialize in economics and even I understand that.
No? You're not going to discuss why I don't understand? You are just going to keep repeating that I'm ignorant?
The same guy who used the word phrase "logical fallacy".
lol
Cool, you win. This obviously means a lot to you. Have a good day man.
Incidentally, mr "engineer", your condescension in resposnse to my statement that I have completed units in formal logic is the same as me comdescendingly saying you have "units" in partial differential equations. It's almost as though you never attended a university.
Congratulations — You just won the Obnoxious of the Day Award.
I’m not someone who spent a dime on his wedding because I didn’t think it was worth it and neither did my wife. But it does occur to me that someone who spends say a day at a venue and a day retouching and admin plus has to pay for gear, marketing, risk mitigation and so on does deserve a certain amount of pay. If you add everything up with real depreciation value of equipment you could be surprised.
That is not to say that some photographers have GAS but you may be surprised how much it costs to run a business which cannot make use of economies of scale / repeatable products even if you can have a repeatable system/ideas it’s not the same as supplying the same bouquets several times over. Also you are most likely a one man band who’s got to do everything from accounting to production and marketing.
As an economist I’m sure you’d get the “picture” but it seems you intentionally don’t want to.
Have a nice day
Let me get this right; you say I "won the obnoxious of the day award", and then attempt to provoke an argument.
Just how stupid are you?
Maybe it is a misunderstanding that you don't know what your value is then. I don't shoot weddings, but I shoot architecture... If the budget does not allow for profit (for me to make a living), then I pass... And my job is multiple days on location, dealing with weather, scouting, sometimes flying wherever in the world the service is needed, and hotel stay. And I also understanding that also 40-50% easily erased from taxes, and that the photography is just the beginning with multiple days of editing, and paying for a potential client lunch that might not use my photography is part my business, advertisement to other potential clients and on and on. The average person doesn't understand, when they take from the $50k annual salary (or $24 hr) before taxes, that their boss (if you are in an industry that works for other companies) is charging $125-150 hr for your work because they pay for their retirement, health insurance, the building you work in, employer taxes and on and on. It is why I prefer to do my photography with companies than with average people, they actually understand what goes into a business. And I too charge my rate because I do want to pay for my house, save for when I'm old retiree and can't photograph, go to the movies with my family too, take a vacations (remember, self-employment doesn't get 2 week of vacation and sick time). And if you think you are "massively overpricing" your clients, then maybe you need to dive into your business plan of where you at in 30-50 years when your can't work, and maybe it needs reworking?
Yes, I'm positive that photograohers don't leverage their position like the rest of the industry. No doubt photographers are remarkably moral.
https://youtu.be/O5BeLinyfpg
F8 and be there!
Anyone with half a brain can turn a camera on and take inages. All they have to do is simply copy others work and have a standard shot list they can easily download.
This isn't shooting for Forbes or Toyota.
What did she shoot with? It honestly looks like a point and shoot or a kit lens, given the deep DOF. I think she really either a) doesn't know how to post process images at all - because you could clean this up quite a bit, at least or b) doesn't care enough to post process the images.
Probably a little of both.
kit lens would not explain it. looks like a P&S to me or maybe a DSLR just set to jpeg, indoor white balance (THE WHOLE TIME) and exposure -1
Oh it's almost definitely JPEG out of camera.
She is a Sony shooter for sure. Bwahahahaha
Why are they surprised and complaining? What's the nightmare? They got what they paid for. I'm guessing they blew off other wedding photographers who wanted to charge three or four times as much? If so, they didn't see the value. Now they do. Or, if that's all they could afford, there's nothing else to really say. At least the iPhonographers took some good shots.
YUP. Plenty of good wedding photogs out there that will do a small wedding for under 1k. I know / have known quite a lot. They work hard and produce very good results.
Much better than a couple who can't afford an expensive photographer not getting one at all. Nobody wins in that situation.
I'm surprised the article didn't mention how feet were cut off in that first picture. No retouching can save that.
Also, Fstoppers, you need to give Phil Koehler credit below the final image. The bride may have given permission to use it but it is his photo. Insider credited him - a photography website certainly should as well.
Great point! Also, without seeing the contract I can't know for sure, but she almost certainly doesn't have the right to give permission for reproduction.
I would assume a lot of wedding photographers give permission to share photos. But when they do, they usually stipulate they must be credited. That's what I've done when I've shot weddings in the past. I don't mind them posting the photos wherever, but I insist they include credit.
Fstoppers should know better. And they still haven't fixed it.
You would definitely know better than me, I just assumed that most agreements would give personal use permissions like printing and social media, but not necessarily handing the rights to a site that is going to write an article about something or use it for commercial purposes. Which is effectively what Fstoppers is doing as they run ads on all their posts.
Well, I don't know what other wedding photographers do, other than the ones I know personally. Some might prohibit it. Though, in this case, I'm sure either a) it was allowed via contract or b) the photographer allowed it (I'm sure he doesn't mind a bit of exposure in Insider haha).
Also, a lot of photographers require that you get prints from them. Social media, obviously, is always ok in my experience. Would be silly if it weren't.
Worst wedding nightmare? Hardly. I should think the death of the bride or groom, or a drunken relative causing a fight, or food poisoning would be much worse than a bad photographer. Bad photographs are an every week occurrence.
Oh, and reread the second sentence of the first paragraph. You could definitely use a copy editor
Oh, great. Now we'll start getting the "I shot a wedding with only my iPhone...and they were better than the pro's photos!" articles.
I could probably shoot a wedding on my iphone and get more interesting photos than most of the pros ;p